Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
On 8/4/20 13:16, dorothea at osmfoundation.org (Dorothea Kazazi) wrote: > Hello, > > The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software > dispute resolution panel: > https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispute-resolution-panel/ > > .. and is asking for comments and feedback. > Please reply to this message ~ thank you. I think this is a great idea and I would be interested in serving on the panel. I do most of my edits with software besides iD (JOSM, Vespucci, and StreetComplete), however I used iD almost exclusively for the first 2-3 years or so I contributed to OSM and still use iD from time to time (mainly to make quick edits and map turn restrictions). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
I support your nomination. You're a really good candidate for it. I would propose myself, but I don't, as I have almost zero experience with using iD. Polyglot On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 06:47 Roland Olbricht wrote: > Hello, > > first of all I'm glad to read that the board addresses the sudden > funding hole for iD, and does in addition care about the critique around > iD. > > I would like to self-nominate for the software dispute resolution panel. > > For my understanding of the task please (re-)read > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-June/006909.html > tl;dr: There is no silver bullet, hence no team of experts is going to > find one. Conflict resolution is painful work for all involved, but it > also likely to yield insight and an improved software. I see a panel's > member's job in encouraging the involved people to keep walking through > the resolution process. > > I also promise resp. reserve the right to share or paraphrase (for the > purpse of removing personal issues) all communications regarding the > nomination process. There have been concerns about whether the > nomination process is balanced and being open is the best way to address > them. On a personal note: I have no doubts it is, and the artifacts we > currenty encounter are consistent with a board intensely keeping many > trains in their rails in parallel. > > Regarding potential CoI: > - I develop the Overpass API but it is intentionally tag agnostic. > - I do not plan to put the Overpass API under the panel regime. > Thus, I do not expect any CoI from my contributions as developer to > OpenStreetMap. > > Best regards, > Roland > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
Hello, first of all I'm glad to read that the board addresses the sudden funding hole for iD, and does in addition care about the critique around iD. I would like to self-nominate for the software dispute resolution panel. For my understanding of the task please (re-)read https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-June/006909.html tl;dr: There is no silver bullet, hence no team of experts is going to find one. Conflict resolution is painful work for all involved, but it also likely to yield insight and an improved software. I see a panel's member's job in encouraging the involved people to keep walking through the resolution process. I also promise resp. reserve the right to share or paraphrase (for the purpse of removing personal issues) all communications regarding the nomination process. There have been concerns about whether the nomination process is balanced and being open is the best way to address them. On a personal note: I have no doubts it is, and the artifacts we currenty encounter are consistent with a board intensely keeping many trains in their rails in parallel. Regarding potential CoI: - I develop the Overpass API but it is intentionally tag agnostic. - I do not plan to put the Overpass API under the panel regime. Thus, I do not expect any CoI from my contributions as developer to OpenStreetMap. Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
Hi, On 8/4/20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. Speaking as a DWG member, I always hoped that people would judge us by the work we do, not how we got the job ;) And about the matter at hand, the DWG has been asked whether they would like to take on this extra responsibility and we have not yet responded with anything definitive. On the one hand, this extra job would use more of our resources and divert them from other important work; on the other hand, any dispute within the community over editor presets and the like would sooner or later bubble up to DWG anyway. If a panel is created that is separate from DWG, we'd definitely have to build ourselves some safeguards that avoid finding the two bodies on different sides of a dispute ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: > > The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software > dispute resolution panel: > https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu >te-resolution-panel/ I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it does not control itself... For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members themselves. See also: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate data users. Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel on cases is going to happen behind closed doors. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
Hello, The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software dispute resolution panel: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispute-resolution-panel/ .. and is asking for comments and feedback. Please reply to this message ~ thank you. warm greetings, Dorothea ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
